Local Number Portability (LNP) has been mandated since the enactment of the 1996 Telecommunications Act to allow a user telephone number to be ported from an incumbent competitive local exchange carrier (ILEC) (e.g., Verizon) providing telephone service to an alternative telephone service provider (e.g., a competitive local exchange carrier—CLEC; e.g., AT&T) enabling seamless voice communications service (e.g., telephone service) for the user. However, the state-by-state practical implementation of LNP has not been uniform nor efficient to provide quality telephone service to users as procedural and technical agreement between at least two competing LECs and regional Number Portability Administration Centers is required.
Some states have adopted an 800 number type of portability approach as the originating central office (CO) for the telephone call queries a centralized database (Service Control Point—SCP) of telephone numbers via a Signaling System 7 (SS7) link. The SCP identifies the LEC providing telephone service to the target telephone number enabling the originating carrier to hand the call off to the terminating carrier.
Other states, such as Illinois, have adopted an alternative LNP approach where a new 10-digit telephone number known as a Local Routing Number (LRN) is used. When a telephone call is made, the originating CO consults the SCP and is provided with the LRN along with the identification of the CLEC to which the telephone service has been ported. The originating carrier then hands off the call to the CLEC. Although the LRN approach is deemed to be the preferred porting method by telephone industry organizations, this approach requires two telephone numbers which further complicates the administration of the North American Numbering Plan (NANP). Also, both approaches require an extensive signaling network (e.g., SS7) to send out an information query and send back the required data.
Due to the non-uniformity and complexity in performing LNP, the waiting period (for the ILEC to port the number) for the user may be long and inconvenient (e.g., several days). Additionally, oft-times the port is not successfully completed as failed ports may occur that leave the user without viable telephone service due to process and/or technical errors in swinging the telephone lines to the alternative telephone service provider.
Therefore, due to the disadvantages of current LNP approaches, there is a need to provide telephone number porting that is performed quickly and efficiently to ensure seamless quality of telephone service for the user via in switching from a first telephone service provider to a second telephone service provider.